BRC 4.10.3.5 - Metal Detector Test Sizes
Hi Experts!
BRC issue 7 4.10.3.5 requires metal detector test sizes to be determined by risk assessment. We have always stated they were based on industry standards. Does anyone have an example of this they could share???
Thanks!
Product, product temperature, product tunnel height and width, frequency, electrical noise, all effect sensitivity. We could use more information about your product.
We are a bakery that produces RTE bagels. We have never had any issues with our standards, just need to show a risk assessment on how they were determined.
Miss Tammy,
Reading through the section I would say that the basis of your metal pieces should be based on risk to the product/of the product, as brian said there are so many things that can affect a detector that putting all those things together based upon best advice/practice from the manufacturer/industry would give the best means of risk assessing ie, the nature of your products + size of detector + variables = the sizes of pieces best used, which is your risk rating, you would not use a 5mm piece if you know that there is a risk of a smaller size getting through AND you know based on your product you can use smaller.
Hope that makes sense? Sounds a little convoluted and it is only an opinion based upon reading and deciphering the text, and maybe someone else can clarify based on more than opinion, but that is how I read it.
The attached may/may not be of help.
You could certainly do the same thing to "justify" why your limits are where they are.
Marshall
Attached Files
Hi Experts!
BRC issue 7 4.10.3.5 requires metal detector test sizes to be determined by risk assessment. We have always stated they were based on industry standards. Does anyone have an example of this they could share???
Thanks!
Hi Tammy,
The (safety) risk is presumably that the MD setting does not detect sufficiently small, hazardous, metallic contaminants.
Logically, when used in a validated procedure, the size of the (consistently detectable/removable) test sample should presumably be less than the minimum size of a metallic contaminant which is considered to be a significant hazard.
There are innumerable publications/opinions on classifying hazardous metal fragments, particularly with respect to size, shape, texture. In some locations I understand that a size is regulatory defined albeit the choice may be debated which simplifies things. For example, IIRC, Canada considers <2mm to not be a significant hazard. Whether it identifies a related consumer category also I don’t remember.
Afaik the usfda, from a safety POV, considers hazardous metal to be regulatory defined by this document –
http://www.fda.gov/I...l/ucm074554.htm
As you can see, various scenarios are possible with different size interpretations. The thread below, and many others on this forum, discuss the practical complexities associated with the above viewpoint and others.
http://www.ifsqn.com...nished-product/
Will be interesting to see what response BRC actually expect to receive. Something vague probably. :smile:
PS - this thread is along the same lines -
Thanks for all of your help. You have certainly given me plenty of "food for thought"!